and ain't i a woman?: What's in a name?
Geek girls, tank girls, net chicks, guerilla girls ... these are the new labels for women who, in this "post-feminist era" are self-confident, assertive and independent enough to "do it for themselves".
That young women today can identify with "girls" driving military tanks (and winning the war), that they can not only access the internet, but surf the web as fast and adventurously as any male, are indications of the real progress that feminism has made in breaking down gender stereotypes. The badges of "tank girl" or "net chick" are worn with pride — "Girls can do anything", as the slogan goes.
But there's something else going on here — something insidious and not so worthy of celebration by feminists.
You only have to watch mass advertising, read the latest magazines for young women, or plough through the tracts of "do it yourself" feminism to see that the gains that the women's rights movement made in the area of non-sexist language are being undermined at an alarming rate.
Words that used to be totally unacceptable to feminists — such as "chick", "girl" and "babe" — are becoming commonplace again; they are being sold to and adopted again, even by women who believe in and actively support equal rights for women.
The Howard government's instruction late last year to public servants responsible for drafting legislation that they must use gender specific terms, such as chairman rather than chairperson, is a much starker example of this backlash.
It was not moralism or "political correctness" that motivated the women's movement to identify these words as unacceptable. It was a response to the fact that most words used specifically to describe women in advanced capitalist societies have, inevitably, reflected the fundamental sexism of those societies and have categorised, trivialised or demeaned women. Babe, chick, lady, bitch, girl are only the mildest of these.
As well, words used to describe positions have either been gender-specific extensions of women's "proper" role as wife, mother and domestic slave (barmen worked alongside barmaids and stewards alongside air hostesses, for example), or they have obliterated women altogether (everyone was a chairman, regardless of their gender, for instance).
During the 1970s and '80s, feminists fought hard for the introduction of guidelines and norms in workplaces, trade unions, public policy, the law, parliament, the media, etc. which would encourage people to avoid the use, verbally or in writing, of these sexist terms. They also fought for the recognition and rejection of language that was racist or offensive to people with disabilities.
The battle to have such guidelines accepted was one aspect of a multi-pronged approach to combating harassment and discrimination against women in the public sphere. It complemented the struggle for legal procedures to deal with sexual harassment, affirmative action policies and women's services, for example.
By itself, non-sexist language will not free women from discrimination. Because language reflects rather than shapes reality, its content, and demands for it to change, will be determined by the relative strength of the feminist movement, not vice versa.
Nevertheless, language does reflect and influence how people think about gender. The insistence on non-sexist language is an insistence that society acknowledge that gender inequality is real and should be combated. Non-sexist language guidelines, accompanied by broader education campaigns about why they are needed, can encourage non-sexist ideas and behaviour. The progress made in this area so far must be guarded vigilantly.
Women are women — not brainless feathered creatures, not immature female humans, not helpless bundles that wear nappies, and definitely not chairmen.
By Lisa Macdonald